Ezarate, there is absolutely nothing in the guidelines that mentions that a color image is required. This is a professional portrait of very good quality, there is no reason for your opposition. And we have several back and white valued images of people. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Must illustrate its subject well. if color is abscent, and in this case there isn't none reason for that, a significant information of the person is missing Ezarateesteban21:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this person already lives, and historical photo can be B&W but we can obtain and color portrait of that person, we need the opinion of another user Ezarateesteban22:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the moment we have no other image. Relying on Article 3 seems to me to be excessive. Despite the fact that I do not like the black and white images one can not reject it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't help but agree with Ezarate when he says that the absence of colour does take away a lot from a given image. However, this an image of a person, so shouldn't be that controversial. Let me elaborate – if it were an image of a nature scene, or a building, ect., absence of colour would be a problem, in my opinion, because colour helps give the audience a better visual understanding of the scenario. For example, blue lake = clean lake, brown lake = dirty lake. However, since it's expected and implied from the white tones of the image that this woman has a white skin tone, it doesn't matter that much in this case. People would naturally know what the colour of a human being such as this one would look like anyways. The colour of the clothes are irrelevant, since the subject of the image is the person, and she can easily be found in any number of other outfits. Long story short, it's a portrait of a person, so colour is a lot less important here. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
